occasion to remark that, 'after Eawlinsou it was only possible for other scholars to obtain gleanings in the field of Persian cuneiform interpretation.' ^ In his own country, however, he seems to have suffered for a time from the shigular aff'ectation that was so long in fashion, of looking to Germany alone for all the springs of knowledge. As a matter of fact, in this department at least, few Germans, with the exception of Grotefend, made any important contribution. Kask, Lassen, Westergaard, were all Scandinavians, and it is certain that for many years Eawlinson continued to be the source whence Continental writers drew most largely; and the neirlect into which he fell at home occasioned the surprise of at least one eminent Frenchman. ' Young English and Germans,' says M. Oppert, ' pre- tend not to know him. An Englishman once told me he had never read a line of Eawlinson. I replied: '^ I supposed just so; if you had read liim, your i)apers would be less imperfect tlian they are." ' ^' This testimony to the i>*reat services of Sir Henry Eawlinson is cfiven by the scholar who for many years occupied by far the most prominent position among Continental writers upon cuneiform subjects, and who has himself contri- buted largely to the progress of the study.
In 1851, ^[. Oppert undertook a complete revision of the whole series of Achaemenian inscriptions. The work appeared in the 'Journal Asiatique,' between February ISOl and rel)ruarv 1852, and was after- wards published in a separate form.^^ He introduced a considerable ninnl)er of alterations, in both the trans- literation and translation, and, so far as we have noticed, a large proportion of them have been accepted.
^ Memoir by Canon R^iwlinson, p. 824. * Ih. p. 33.
^ Mhnoire sur les hiscn'ptions des AcheincnideSjl*€Lr[s,lSb'2,Svo. Journ, Asiatifjue (4® serie), vols, xvii.-xix.
